SC refers plea seeking lifetime ban on convicted MPs/MLAs to CJI
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing.
'This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,' Hansaria submitted.
The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions.
The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI's listing.
In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide.
The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute "lifetime" for "six years" as suggested by the petitioner.
'The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read 'lifetime' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,' the Centre submitted.
The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. 'It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,' it said.
The Centre further argued that the PIL failed to distinguish between the basis for disqualification (i.e., conviction) and the effect of disqualification (i.e., its duration). It noted that Indian penal statutes often impose time-bound restrictions on rights and freedoms post-conviction, and that extending these indefinitely would be unduly harsh and disproportionate.
'At the end of the prescribed time, penalties cease to operate automatically. Deterrence is ensured, while undue harshness is avoided,' the government stated.
It also reiterated that any direction to Parliament on how to draft or amend laws would be beyond the constitutional powers of the judiciary.
The PIL raises a larger question regarding the criminalisation of politics, an issue repeatedly flagged by the Supreme Court in the past.
The Court has, over the years, issued directions for the expeditious trial of criminal cases against lawmakers and for greater transparency in candidate disclosures.
As the matter now heads to a larger Bench, the decision could have far-reaching implications for electoral reforms, legislative accountability, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of legislative policy.
UNI SNG AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
"I don't know anything about it": Trump on U.S. imports of Russian chemicals and fertilizers
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) stated that he had no knowledge that the United States imports Russian Chemicals and fertilizers. The rebuttal came after India claimed that U.S. continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, fertilisers, as well as chemicals. When asked by the ANI about U.S. Imports of Russian chemicals and fertilizers during a press conference at the White House, Mr. Trump said, 'I don't know anything about it. We will have to check.' ANI has reached out to the President's press team and awaits for a response. The comment came a day after the U.S. President announced that the United States would 'substantially raise' tariffs on India over its purchase of Russian oil. 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the oil purchased, selling it on the open market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the U.S.A. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!' Mr. Trump had said in a post on Truth Social on Monday (August 4, 2025). The U.S. President's statement was strongly rejected by India, with the Ministry of External Affairs calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable.' In a detailed response, India said its imports from Russia were based on market needs and energy security, especially after Western nations diverted traditional supplies to Europe following the Ukraine conflict. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets stability. India's imports are meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer. They are a necessity compelled by global market situation. However, it is revealing that the very nations criticizing India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia. Unlike our case, such trade is not even a vital national compulsion,' the statement noted. The government also pointed to continued trade between Russia and both the United States and the European Union. 'Where the United States is concerned, it continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers, as well as chemicals. In this background, the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' the MEA statement said.
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea on J&K statehood on August 8
NEW DELHI The Supreme Court will take up on Friday an application seeking restoration of statehood for Jammu and Kashmir in a timebound manner. On Tuesday, the application was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the two applicants, academic Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The hearing in the top court came amid speculation of possible restoration of statehood to J&K after a tweet posted by chief minister Omar Abdullah on Monday sharing his 'gut feeling' that he is 'optimistic' about 'something positive' for the Union territory during Parliament's ongoing monsoon session. On August 5, 2019 the state was bifurcated into two Union territories following the abrogation of Article 370 by Parliament. On Tuesday, the application was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the two applicants, academic Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, who had in October 2024 approached the top court to consider restoration of statehood within a specific time frame, preferably within two months. Appearing before a bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, the senior advocate said that the matter is showing on the list of business for August 8 and requested that the same should not be deleted. The CJI allowed the request by passing a short order, 'Not to be deleted'. A five-judge Constitution bench of the top court had on December 11, 2023 unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370 and directed state elections to be conducted by September 2024. The application has been filed in the previously concluded 'In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution' case. Following elections held in three phases from September 18 to October 1 last year, a new government was formed by the National Conference-Congress alliance. National Conference vice-president Omar Abdullah was sworn in as chief minister. The verdict by the Constitution bench called the abrogation the 'culmination of the process of integration' of the erstwhile state into the Union of India. It held the abrogation to be a perfectly valid exercise of power by the President, ruling that Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary provision. However, on the issue of restoration of statehood, the court chose not to give a ruling on whether the reorganisation of the state into two Union territories was constitutionally permissible. It pointed to the Centre's statement that statehood of J&K would be restored eventually. The judgment emphasised that the same should be done 'at the earliest'. The application filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi said, 'The non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu & Kashmir in a timebound manner violates the idea of federalism which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India.' It further stated that the prolonged Union territory status is unwarranted and calls for prompt action in accordance with the assurance given by the Centre in earlier proceedings.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Former BJP Spokesperson Appointed Bombay HC Judge; Oppn Slams Move: 'Blow To Democracy'
Arati Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve impartiality of the judiciary The appointment of Advocate Arati Sathe as a judge of the Bombay High Court stirred political controversy in Maharashtra, following revelations that she had previously served as the official spokesperson for the Maharashtra unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on July 28, approved the elevation of Ajit Bhagwantrao Kadehankar, Arati Arun Sathe, and Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar as judges of the Bombay High Court. Sathe's appointment drew criticism from Opposition leaders, who have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest and the need to preserve the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. NCP (Sharad Pawar) leader and MLA Rohit Pawar voiced strong objections, sharing a screenshot of a letter issued on Maharashtra BJP letterhead naming Sathe as the party's spokesperson — a post she herself had acknowledged on social media. Pawar described the appointment as a serious threat to democratic principles. 'The appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy," he said. 'Such appointments will have far-reaching consequences on the impartiality of the Indian judicial system." He further cited concerns about the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. 'Doesn't the appointment of a political spokesperson as a judge undermine the principle of separation of powers and, by extension, constitute an attempt to subvert the Constitution?" he asked. Highlighting the broader implications, Pawar stated: 'When a person appointed as a judge in a High Court has a political background and has held a position in the ruling party, who can guarantee that the process of delivering justice will not be tainted by political bias? Doesn't the appointment of a single political figure raise questions about the entire process of justice delivery?" While clarifying that he had no objection to Sathe's legal qualifications, Pawar said the issue lies in public perception and trust in judicial impartiality. 'The appointment of such a person strikes at the sentiment of ordinary citizens that 'justice is delivered without any bias,'" he added, urging the government to reconsider the decision. 'The Honorable Chief Justice should also provide guidance on this matter." BJP Counters Responding to the controversy, Maharashtra BJP media cell in-charge Navnath Bang confirmed that Sathe had been a spokesperson for the party. However, he emphasised that she had resigned from the role prior to her judicial appointment. Further, Maharashtra BJP's chief spokesperson Keshav Upadhye asked the Congress and Rohit Pawar to answer a few questions. 'Justice Baharul Islam was elected to the Rajya Sabha in April 1962 as a Congress candidate. He was re-elected to the Rajya Sabha in 1968. During this time, he also contested the Assam Legislative Assembly elections but was defeated." 'In 1972, he resigned from the Rajya Sabha and was appointed as a judge of the Gauhati High Court. In March 1980, he retired from the judiciary and re-entered politics," Upadhye said in a clear swipe at the Congress. 'After his retirement, Indira Gandhi's government appointed him as a judge of the Supreme Court in December 1980. In 1983, after he acquitted the then Chief Minister of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra, in a corruption case and faced criticism for it; he resigned from the post of judge. Subsequently, in the same year (1983), the Congress party appointed him again to the Rajya Sabha," he added. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : BJP Bombay HC maharashtra view comments First Published: August 06, 2025, 08:56 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
